 | | Re: 6 new bulk packs at S@H
|
|
(...) By your logic, I might as well take a razor blade and slash my arm because I will only lose a small percentage of my life's blood. The real question is how many people LOVE the new colors enough to increase their purchases, not how many people (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.market.shopping, FTX)
|
| |
| | Re: The breadcrumbs from the masters table
|
|
"Christian Treczoks" <ct@braehler.com> wrote in message news:HutpDo.1ry4@lugnet.com... (...) Perhaps, but what does the VAT do? Are the labor costs for running the distribution center more? It's really hard to compare prices in two countries (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: 6 new bulk packs at S@H
|
|
(...) for (...) gotten away (...) former (...) I didn't forget, that wasn't the point I was making. The point was that Coke accepted the mistake and changed it back. Why they did it is completely irrelevant. It was just an example that a company, (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: 6 new bulk packs at S@H
|
|
(...) Changing back would mean that LEGO management would have to admit the decision was wrong in the first place. This won't happen unless sales drop off badly. This won't happen because most LEGO is bought for kids and it's not likely that this (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
| |
| | Re: 6 new bulk packs at S@H
|
|
(...) You seem to forget that Coke had real competition (Pepsi). If it weren't for lots of pissed-off people abandoning the Coke brand, Coke could have gotten away with the switch. The fact is that a viable alternative did exist, and former "loyal" (...) (20 years ago, 19-Mar-04, to lugnet.lego.direct, lugnet.market.shopping)
|
